Tag Archives: Privacy

A Technical Guide to CCPA

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://techblog.bozho.net/a-technical-guide-to-ccpa/

CCPA, or the California Consumer Privacy Act, is the upcoming “small GDPR” that is applied for all companies that have users from California (i.e. it has extraterritorial application). It is not as massive as GDPR, but you may want to follow its general recommendations.

A few years ago I wrote a technical GDPR guide. Now I’d like to do the same with CCPA. GDPR is much more prescriptive on the fact that you should protect users’ data, whereas CCPA seems to be mainly concerned with the rights of the users – to be informed, to opt out of having their data sold, and to be forgotten. That focus is mainly because other laws in California and the US have provisions about protecting confidentiality of data and data breaches; in that regard GDPR is a more holistic piece of legislation, whereas CCPA covers mostly the aspect of users’ rights (or “consumers”, which is the term used in CCPA). I’ll use “user” as it’s the term more often use in technical discussions.

I’ll list below some important points from CCPA – this is not an exhaustive list of requirements to a software system, but aims to highlight some important bits. And, obviously, I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve been doing data protection consultations and products (like SentinelDB) for the past several years, so I’m qualified to talk about the technical side of privacy regulations.

  • Right of access – you should be able to export (in a human-readable format, and preferable in machine-readable as well) all the data that you have collected about an individual. Their account details, their orders, their preferences, their posts and comments, etc.
  • Deletion – you should delete any data you hold about the user. Exceptions apply, of course, including data used for prevention of fraud, other legal reasons, needed for debugging, necessary to complete the business requirement, or anything that the user can reasonably expect. From a technical perspective, this means you most likely have to delete what’s in your database, but other places where you have personal data, like logs or analytics, can be skipped (provided you don’t use it to reconstruct user profiles, of course)
  • Notify 3rd party providers that received data from you – when data deletion is requested, you have to somehow send notifications to wherever you’ve sent personal data. This can be a SaaS like Mailchimp, Salesforce or Hubspot, or it can be someone you sold the data (apparently that’s a major thing in CCPA). So ideally you should know where data has been sent and invoke APIs for forgetting it. Fortunately, most of these companies are already compliant with GDPR anyway, so they have these endpoints exposed. You just have to add the logic. If your company sells data by posting dumps to S3 or sending Excel sheets via email, you have a bigger problem as you have to keep track of those activities and send unstructured requests (e.g. emails).
  • Data lineage – this is not spelled out as a requirement, but it follows from multiple articles, including the one for deletion as well as the one for disclosing who data was sent to and where did data came from in your system (in order to know if you can re-sell it, among other things). In order to avoid buying expensive data lineage solutions, you can either have a spreadsheet (in case of simpler processes), or come up with a meaningful way to tag your data. For example, using a separate table with columns (ID, table, sourceType, sourceId, sourceDetails), where ID and table identify a record of personal data in your database, sourceType is the way you have ingested the data (e.g. API call, S3, email) and the ID is the identifier that you can use to track how it came in your system – API key, S3 bucket name, email “from”, or even company registration ID (data might still be sent around flash drives, I guess). Similar table for the outgoing data (with targetType and targetId). It’s a simplified implementation but it might work in cases where a spreadsheet would be too cumbersome to take care of.
  • Age restriction – if you’ve had the opportunity to know the age of a person whose data you have, you should check it. That means not to ignore the age or data of birth field when you import data from 3rd parties, and also to politely ask users about their age. You can’t sell that data, so you need to know which records are automatically opted out. If you never ever sell data, well, it’s still a good idea to keep it (per GDPR)
  • Don’t discriminate if users have used their privacy rights – that’s more of a business requirement, but as technical people we should know that we are not allowed to have logic based on users having used their CCPA (or GDPR) rights. From a data organization perspective, I’d put rights requests in a separate database than the actual data to make it harder to fulfill such requirements. You can’t just do a SQL query to check if someone should get a better price, you should do cross system integration and that might dissuade product owners from breaking the law; furthermore it will be a good sign in case of audits.
  • “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” – this should be on the homepage if you have to comply with CCPA. It’s a bit of a harsh requirement, but it should take users to a form where they can opt out of having their data sold. As mentioned in a previous point, this could be a different system to hold users’ CCPA preferences. It might be easier to just have a set of columns in the users’ table, of course.
  • Identifying users is an important aspect. CCPA speaks about “verifiable requests”. So if someone drops you an email “I want my data deleted”, you should be able to confirm it’s really them. In an online system that can be a button in the user profile (for opting out, for deletion, or for data access) – if they know the password, it’s fairly certain it’s them. However, in some cases, users don’t have accounts in the system. In that case there should be other ways to identify them. SSN sounds like one, and although it’s a terrible things to use for authentication, with the lack of universal digital identity, especially in the US, it’s hard not to use it at least as part of the identifying information. But it can’t be the only thing – it’s not a password, it’s an identifier. So users sharing their SSN (if you have it), their phone or address, passport or driving license might be some data points to collect for identifying them. Note that once you collect that data, you can’t use it for other purposes, even if you are tempted to. CCPA requires also a toll-free phone support, which is hardly applicable to non-US companies even though they have customers in California, but it poses the question of identifying people online based on real-world data rather than account credentials. And please don’t ask users about their passwords over the phone; just initiate a request on their behalf in the system and direct them to login and confirm it. There should be additional guidelines for identifying users as per 1798.185(a)(7).
  • Deidentification and aggregate consumer information – aggregated information, e.g. statistics, is not personal data, unless you are able to extract personal data based on it (e.g. the statistics is split per town and age and you have only two users in a given town, you can easily see who is who). Aggregated data is differentiate from deidentified data, which is data that has its identifiers removed. Simply removing identifiers, though, might again not be sufficient to deidentify data – based on several other data points, like IP address (+ logs), physical address (+ snail mail history), phone (+ phone book), one can be uniquely identified. If you can’t reasonably identify a person based on a set of data, it can be considered deidentified. Do make the mental exercise of thinking how to deidentify your data, as then it’s much easier to share it (or sell it) to third parties. Probably nobody minds being part of an aggregated statistics sold to someone, or an anonymized account used for trend analysis.
  • Pseudonymization is a measure to be taken in many scenarios to protect data. CCPA mentions it particularly in research context, but I’d support a generic pseudonymization functionality. That means replacing the identifying information with a pseudonym, that’s not reversible unless a secret piece of data is used. Think of it (and you can do that quite literally) as encrypting the identifier(s) with a secret key to form the pseudonym. You can then give that data to third parties to work with it (e.g. to do market segmentation) and then give it back to you. You can then decrypt the pseudonyms and fill the obtained market segment(s) into your own database. The 3rd party doesn’t get personal information, but you still get the relevant data
  • Audit trail is not explicitly stated as a requirement, but since you have the obligation to handle users requests and track the use of their data in and outside of your system, it’s a good idea to have a form of audit trail – who did what with which data; who handled a particular user request; how was the user identified in order to perform the request, etc.

As CCPA is not concerned with data confidentiality requirements, I won’t repeat my GDPR advice about using encryption whenever possible (notably, for backups), or about internal security measures for authentication.

CCPA is focused on the rights of your users and you should be able to handle them (and track how you handled them). You can have manual and spreadsheet based processes if you are not too big, and you should definitely check with your legal team if and to what extent CCPA applies to your company. But if you have implemented the GDPR data subject rights, it’s likely that you are already compliant with CCPA in terms of the overall system architecture, except for a few minor details.

The post A Technical Guide to CCPA appeared first on Bozho's tech blog.

Securely tailor your TV viewing with BBC Box and Raspberry Pi

Post Syndicated from Alex Bate original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/securely-tailor-your-tv-viewing-with-bbc-box-and-raspberry-pi/

Thanks to BBC Box, you might be able to enjoy personalised services without giving up all your data. Sean McManus reports:

One day, you could watch TV shows that are tailored to your interests, thanks to BBC Box. It pulls together personal data from different sources in a household device, and gives you control over which apps may access it.

“If we were to create a device like BBC Box and put it out there, it would allow us to create personalised services without holding personal data,” says Max Leonard.

TV shows could be edited on the device to match the user’s interests, without those interests being disclosed to the BBC. One user might see more tech news and less sport news, for example.

BBC Box was partly inspired by a change in the law that gives us all the right to reuse data that companies hold on us. “You can pull out data dumps, but it’s difficult to do anything with them unless you’re a data scientist,” explains Max. “We’re trying to create technologies to enable people to do interesting things with their data, and allow organisations to create services based on that data on your behalf.”

Building the box

BBC Box is based on Raspberry Pi 3B+, the most powerful model available when this project began. “Raspberry Pi is an amazing prototyping platform,” says Max. “Relatively powerful, inexpensive, with GPIO, and able to run a proper OS. Most importantly, it can fit inside a small box!”

That prototype box is a thing of beauty, a hexagonal tube made of cedar wood. “We created a set of principles for experience and interaction with BBC Box and themes of strength, protection, and ownership came out very strongly,” says Jasmine Cox. “We looked at shapes in nature and architecture that were evocative of these themes (beehives, castles, triangles) and played with how they could be a housing for Raspberry Pi.”

The core software for collating and managing access to data is called Databox. Alpine Linux was chosen because it’s “lightweight, speedy but most importantly secure”, in Max’s words. To get around problems making GPIO access work on Alpine Linux, an Arduino Nano is used to control the LEDs. Storage is a 64GB microSD card, and apps run inside Docker containers, which helps to isolate them from each other.

Combining data securely

The BBC has piloted two apps based on BBC Box. One collects your preferred type of TV programme from BBC iPlayer and your preferred music genre from Spotify. That unique combination of data can be used to recommend events you might like from Skiddle’s database.

Another application helps two users to plan a holiday together. It takes their individual preferences and shows them the destinations they both want to visit, with information about them brought in from government and commercial sources. The app protects user privacy, because neither user has to reveal places they’d rather not visit to the other user, or the reason why.

The team is now testing these concepts with users and exploring future technology options for BBC Box.

The MagPi magazine

This article was lovingly yoinked from the latest issue of The MagPi magazine. You can read issue 87 today, for free, right now, by visiting The MagPi website.

You can also purchase issue 87 from the Raspberry Pi Press website with free worldwide delivery, from the Raspberry Pi Store, Cambridge, and from newsagents and supermarkets across the UK.

 

The post Securely tailor your TV viewing with BBC Box and Raspberry Pi appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Obfuscation as a Privacy Tool

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/11/obfuscation_as_.html

This essay discusses the futility of opting out of surveillance, and suggests data obfuscation as an alternative.

We can apply obfuscation in our own lives by using practices and technologies that make use of it, including:

  • The secure browser Tor, which (among other anti-surveillance technologies) muddles our Internet activity with that of other Tor users, concealing our trail in that of many others.
  • The browser plugins TrackMeNot and AdNauseam, which explore obfuscation techniques by issuing many fake search requests and loading and clicking every ad, respectively.
  • The browser extension Go Rando, which randomly chooses your emotional “reactions” on Facebook, interfering with their emotional profiling and analysis.
  • Playful experiments like Adam Harvey’s “HyperFace” project, finding patterns on textiles that fool facial recognition systems ­ not by hiding your face, but by creating the illusion of many faces.

I am generally skeptical about obfuscation tools. I think of this basically as a signal-to-noise problem, and that adding random noise doesn’t do much to obfuscate the signal. But against broad systems of financially motivated corporate surveillance, it might be enough.

Mapping Security and Privacy Research across the Decades

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/mapping_securit.html

This is really interesting: “A Data-Driven Reflection on 36 Years of Security and Privacy Research,” by Aniqua Baset and Tamara Denning:

Abstract: Meta-research—research about research—allows us, as a community, to examine trends in our research and make informed decisions regarding the course of our future research activities. Additionally, overviews of past research are particularly useful for researchers or conferences new to the field. In this work we use topic modeling to identify topics within the field of security and privacy research using the publications of the IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy (1980-2015), the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (1993-2015), the USENIX Security Symposium (1993-2015), and the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (1997-2015). We analyze and present data via the perspective of topics trends and authorship. We believe our work serves to contextualize the academic field of computer security and privacy research via one of the first data-driven analyses. An interactive visualization of the topics and corresponding publications is available at https://secprivmeta.net.

I like seeing how our field has morphed over the years.

Public Voice Launches Petition for an International Moratorium on Using Facial Recognition for Mass Surveillance

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/public_voice_la.html

Coming out of the Privacy Commissioners’ Conference in Albania, Public Voice is launching a petition for an international moratorium on using facial recognition software for mass surveillance.

You can sign on as an individual or an organization. I did. You should as well. No, I don’t think that countries will magically adopt this moratorium. But it’s important for us all to register our dissent.

Wi-Fi Hotspot Tracking

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/wi-fi_hotspot_t.html

Free Wi-Fi hotspots can track your location, even if you don’t connect to them. This is because your phone or computer broadcasts a unique MAC address.

What distinguishes location-based marketing hotspot providers like Zenreach and Euclid is that the personal information you enter in the captive portal­ — like your email address, phone number, or social media profile­ — can be linked to your laptop or smartphone’s Media Access Control (MAC) address. That’s the unique alphanumeric ID that devices broadcast when Wi-Fi is switched on.

As Euclid explains in its privacy policy, “…if you bring your mobile device to your favorite clothing store today that is a Location — ­and then a popular local restaurant a few days later that is also a Location­ — we may know that a mobile device was in both locations based on seeing the same MAC Address.”

MAC addresses alone don’t contain identifying information besides the make of a device, such as whether a smartphone is an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy. But as long as a device’s MAC address is linked to someone’s profile, and the device’s Wi-Fi is turned on, the movements of its owner can be followed by any hotspot from the same provider.

“After a user signs up, we associate their email address and other personal information with their device’s MAC address and with any location history we may previously have gathered (or later gather) for that device’s MAC address,” according to Zenreach’s privacy policy.

The defense is to turn Wi-Fi off on your phone when you’re not using it.

EDITED TO ADD: Note that the article is from 2018. Not that I think anything is different today….

On Chinese "Spy Trains"

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/09/on_chinese_spy_.html

The trade war with China has reached a new industry: subway cars. Congress is considering legislation that would prevent the world’s largest train maker, the Chinese-owned CRRC Corporation, from competing on new contracts in the United States.

Part of the reasoning behind this legislation is economic, and stems from worries about Chinese industries undercutting the competition and dominating key global industries. But another part involves fears about national security. News articles talk about “spy trains,” and the possibility that the train cars might surreptitiously monitor their passengers’ faces, movements, conversations or phone calls.

This is a complicated topic. There is definitely a national security risk in buying computer infrastructure from a country you don’t trust. That’s why there is so much worry about Chinese-made equipment for the new 5G wireless networks.

It’s also why the United States has blocked the cybersecurity company Kaspersky from selling its Russian-made antivirus products to US government agencies. Meanwhile, the chairman of China’s technology giant Huawei has pointed to NSA spying disclosed by Edward Snowden as a reason to mistrust US technology companies.

The reason these threats are so real is that it’s not difficult to hide surveillance or control infrastructure in computer components, and if they’re not turned on, they’re very difficult to find.

Like every other piece of modern machinery, modern train cars are filled with computers, and while it’s certainly possible to produce a subway car with enough surveillance apparatus to turn it into a “spy train,” in practice it doesn’t make much sense. The risk of discovery is too great, and the payoff would be too low. Like the United States, China is more likely to try to get data from the US communications infrastructure, or from the large Internet companies that already collect data on our every move as part of their business model.

While it’s unlikely that China would bother spying on commuters using subway cars, it would be much less surprising if a tech company offered free Internet on subways in exchange for surveillance and data collection. Or if the NSA used those corporate systems for their own surveillance purposes (just as the agency has spied on in-flight cell phone calls, according to an investigation by the Intercept and Le Monde, citing documents provided by Edward Snowden). That’s an easier, and more fruitful, attack path.

We have credible reports that the Chinese hacked Gmail around 2010, and there are ongoing concerns about both censorship and surveillance by the Chinese social-networking company TikTok. (TikTok’s parent company has told the Washington Post that the app doesn’t send American users’ info back to Beijing, and that the Chinese government does not influence the app’s use in the United States.)

Even so, these examples illustrate an important point: there’s no escaping the technology of inevitable surveillance. You have little choice but to rely on the companies that build your computers and write your software, whether in your smartphones, your 5G wireless infrastructure, or your subway cars. And those systems are so complicated that they can be secretly programmed to operate against your interests.

Last year, Le Monde reported that the Chinese government bugged the computer network of the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa. China had built and outfitted the organization’s new headquarters as a foreign aid gift, reportedly secretly configuring the network to send copies of confidential data to Shanghai every night between 2012 and 2017. China denied having done so, of course.

If there’s any lesson from all of this, it’s that everybody spies using the Internet. The United States does it. Our allies do it. Our enemies do it. Many countries do it to each other, with their success largely dependent on how sophisticated their tech industries are.

China dominates the subway car manufacturing industry because of its low prices­ — the same reason it dominates the 5G hardware industry. Whether these low prices are because the companies are more efficient than their competitors or because they’re being unfairly subsidized by the Chinese government is a matter to be determined at trade negotiations.

Finally, Americans must understand that higher prices are an inevitable result of banning cheaper tech products from China.

We might willingly pay the higher prices because we want domestic control of our telecommunications infrastructure. We might willingly pay more because of some protectionist belief that global trade is somehow bad. But we need to make these decisions to protect ourselves deliberately and rationally, recognizing both the risks and the costs. And while I’m worried about our 5G infrastructure built using Chinese hardware, I’m not worried about our subway cars.

This essay originally appeared on CNN.com.

EDITED TO ADD: I had a lot of trouble with CNN’s legal department with this essay. They were very reluctant to call out the US and its allies for similar behavior, and spent a lot more time adding caveats to statements that I didn’t think needed them. They wouldn’t let me link to this Intercept article talking about US, French, and German infiltration of supply chains, or even the NSA document from the Snowden archives that proved the statements.

A Feminist Take on Information Privacy

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/09/a_feminist_take.html

Maria Farrell has a really interesting framing of information/device privacy:

What our smartphones and relationship abusers share is that they both exert power over us in a world shaped to tip the balance in their favour, and they both work really, really hard to obscure this fact and keep us confused and blaming ourselves. Here are some of the ways our unequal relationship with our smartphones is like an abusive relationship:

  • They isolate us from deeper, competing relationships in favour of superficial contact
    — ‘user engagement’ — that keeps their hold on us strong. Working with social media, they insidiously curate our social lives, manipulating us emotionally with dark patterns to keep us scrolling.

  • They tell us the onus is on us to manage their behavior. It’s our job to tiptoe around them and limit their harms. Spending too much time on a literally-designed-to-be-behaviorally-addictive phone? They send company-approved messages about our online time, but ban from their stores the apps that would really cut our use. We just need to use willpower. We just need to be good enough to deserve them.

  • They betray us, leaking data / spreading secrets. What we shared privately with them is suddenly public. Sometimes this destroys lives, but hey, we only have ourselves to blame. They fight nasty and under-handed, and are so, so sorry when they get caught that we’re meant to feel bad for them. But they never truly change, and each time we take them back, we grow weaker.

  • They love-bomb us when we try to break away, piling on the free data or device upgrades, making us click through page after page of dark pattern, telling us no one understands us like they do, no one else sees everything we really are, no one else will want us.

  • It’s impossible to just cut them off. They’ve wormed themselves into every part of our lives, making life without them unimaginable. And anyway, the relationship is complicated. There is love in it, or there once was. Surely we can get back to that if we just manage them the way they want us to?

Nope. Our devices are basically gaslighting us. They tell us they work for and care about us, and if we just treat them right then we can learn to trust them. But all the evidence shows the opposite is true.

Modifying a Tesla to Become a Surveillance Platform

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/08/modifying_a_tes.html

From DefCon:

At the Defcon hacker conference today, security researcher Truman Kain debuted what he calls the Surveillance Detection Scout. The DIY computer fits into the middle console of a Tesla Model S or Model 3, plugs into its dashboard USB port, and turns the car’s built-in cameras­ — the same dash and rearview cameras providing a 360-degree view used for Tesla’s Autopilot and Sentry features­ — into a system that spots, tracks, and stores license plates and faces over time. The tool uses open source image recognition software to automatically put an alert on the Tesla’s display and the user’s phone if it repeatedly sees the same license plate. When the car is parked, it can track nearby faces to see which ones repeatedly appear. Kain says the intent is to offer a warning that someone might be preparing to steal the car, tamper with it, or break into the driver’s nearby home.

Surveillance as a Condition for Humanitarian Aid

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/08/surveillance_as_2.html

Excellent op-ed on the growing trend to tie humanitarian aid to surveillance.

Despite the best intentions, the decision to deploy technology like biometrics is built on a number of unproven assumptions, such as, technology solutions can fix deeply embedded political problems. And that auditing for fraud requires entire populations to be tracked using their personal data. And that experimental technologies will work as planned in a chaotic conflict setting. And last, that the ethics of consent don’t apply for people who are starving.

Exploiting GDPR to Get Private Information

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/08/exploiting_gdpr.html

A researcher abused the GDPR to get information on his fiancee:

It is one of the first tests of its kind to exploit the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May 2018. The law shortened the time organisations had to respond to data requests, added new types of information they have to provide, and increased the potential penalty for non-compliance.

“Generally if it was an extremely large company — especially tech ones — they tended to do really well,” he told the BBC.

“Small companies tended to ignore me.

“But the kind of mid-sized businesses that knew about GDPR, but maybe didn’t have much of a specialised process [to handle requests], failed.”

He declined to identify the organisations that had mishandled the requests, but said they had included:

  • a UK hotel chain that shared a complete record of his partner’s overnight stays
  • two UK rail companies that provided records of all the journeys she had taken with them over several years

  • a US-based educational company that handed over her high school grades, mother’s maiden name and the results of a criminal background check survey.

Japan: Piracy Warning Popups Could Violate Privacy

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/japan-piracy-warning-popups-could-violate-privacy-190806/

In many countries around Europe and further afield, blocking pirate sites is carried out with permission from the courts.

The process is often long and expensive in the first instance but once a precedent has been set, subsequent blocking of additional sites should – at least in theory – be a much more simple affair.

Japan has been struggling to introduce a similar system for some time now but has continually come up against opposition from those who believe that monitoring Internet users’ traffic in order to block various domains amounts to a privacy breach.

The Telecommunications Business Act guarantees privacy of communications and prevents censorship, as does Article 21 of the Constitution.

Additional proposals suggested that Internet users could be confronted with popup warnings when they visit pirate sites, either as an alternative to blocking, a deterrent, or to help people differentiate them from legal offerings. However, that plan is being viewed as a potential invasion of privacy too.

A report compiled this week by an expert panel with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has concluded that such popup warnings could infringe citizens’ right to secrecy of communications.

Asahi reports that in order to make this kind of system work, Internet service providers would first need to obtain consent from their subscribers so that monitoring their attempts to access certain sites would remain legal.

The publication says that after the panel sought opinions from the public on the proposal, it was “bombarded by emails” sent by people calling for the plan to be rejected on privacy grounds.

Given that ISPs in other regions have complained that they shouldn’t bear the costs associated with blocking and similar regimes, it’s no surprise that some in Japan are taking a similar stance. Other providers indicate that they’re not ready from a technological standpoint, which of course is also closely connected with costs.

Nevertheless, some ISPs have agreed to begin trialing a popup warning system during the fall, in order to assess its effectiveness. That will mean them first having to explain to their users that they wish to monitor their online behavior and then obtain legal permission to do so.

Given a choice between being monitored by their ISP or not, it seems unlikely that many Internet users – if they actually understand the proposition – will willingly have someone watch over their communications.

And surely, visitors to pirate sites – the obvious targets of the campaign – will reject the offer immediately, if the purpose of the offer is made to clear to them in the beginning. That calls into question the entire point of the campaign, which is to assess whether warnings on pirate sites will deter their use.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

More on Backdooring (or Not) WhatsApp

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/08/more_on_backdoo.html

Yesterday, I blogged about a Facebook plan to backdoor WhatsApp by adding client-side scanning and filtering. It seems that I was wrong, and there are no such plans.

The only source for that post was a Forbes essay by Kalev Leetaru, which links to a previous Forbes essay by him, which links to a video presentation from a Facebook developers conference.

Leetaru extrapolated a lot out of very little. I watched the video (the relevant section is at the 23:00 mark), and it doesn’t talk about client-side scanning of messages. It doesn’t talk about messaging apps at all. It discusses using AI techniques to find bad content on Facebook, and the difficulties that arise from dynamic content:

So far, we have been keeping this fight [against bad actors and harmful content] on familiar grounds. And that is, we have been training our AI models on the server and making inferences on the server when all the data are flooding into our data centers.

While this works for most scenarios, it is not the ideal setup for some unique integrity challenges. URL masking is one such problem which is very hard to do. We have the traditional way of server-side inference. What is URL masking? Let us imagine that a user sees a link on the app and decides to click on it. When they click on it, Facebook actually logs the URL to crawl it at a later date. But…the publisher can dynamically change the content of the webpage to make it look more legitimate [to Facebook]. But then our users click on the same link, they see something completely different — oftentimes it is disturbing; oftentimes it violates our policy standards. Of course, this creates a bad experience for our community that we would like to avoid. This and similar integrity problems are best solved with AI on the device.

That might be true, but it also would hand whatever secret-AI sauce Facebook has to every one of its users to reverse engineer — which means it’s probably not going to happen. And it is a dumb idea, for reasons Steve Bellovin has pointed out.

Facebook’s first published response was a comment on the Hacker News website from a user named “wcathcart,” which Cardozo assures me is Will Cathcart, the vice president of WhatsApp. (I have no reason to doubt his identity, but surely there is a more official news channel that Facebook could have chosen to use if they wanted to.) Cathcart wrote:

We haven’t added a backdoor to WhatsApp. The Forbes contributor referred to a technical talk about client side AI in general to conclude that we might do client side scanning of content on WhatsApp for anti-abuse purposes.

To be crystal clear, we have not done this, have zero plans to do so, and if we ever did it would be quite obvious and detectable that we had done it. We understand the serious concerns this type of approach would raise which is why we are opposed to it.

Facebook’s second published response was a comment on my original blog post, which has been confirmed to me by the WhatsApp people as authentic. It’s more of the same.

So, this was a false alarm. And, to be fair, Alec Muffet called foul on the first Forbes piece:

So, here’s my pre-emptive finger wag: Civil Society’s pack mentality can make us our own worst enemies. If we go around repeating one man’s Germanic conspiracy theory, we may doom ourselves to precisely what we fear. Instead, we should ­ we must ­ take steps to constructively demand what we actually want: End to End Encryption which is worthy of the name.

Blame accepted. But in general, this is the sort of thing we need to watch for. End-to-end encryption only secures data in transit. The data has to be in the clear on the device where it is created, and it has to be in the clear on the device where it is consumed. Those are the obvious places for an eavesdropper to get a copy.

This has been a long process. Facebook desperately wanted to convince me to correct the record, while at the same time not wanting to write something on their own letterhead (just a couple of comments, so far). I spoke at length with Privacy Policy Manager Nate Cardozo, whom Facebook hired last December from EFF. (Back then, I remember thinking of him — and the two other new privacy hires — as basically human warrant canaries. If they ever leave Facebook under non-obvious circumstances, we know that things are bad.) He basically leveraged his historical reputation to assure me that WhatsApp, and Facebook in general, would never do something like this. I am trusting him, while also reminding everyone that Facebook has broken so many privacy promises that they really can’t be trusted.

Final note: If they want to be trusted, Adam Shostack and I gave them a road map.

Hacker News thread.

EDITED TO ADD (8/4): Slashdot covered my retraction.

How Privacy Laws Hurt Defendants

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/08/how_privacy_law.html

Rebecca Wexler has an interesting op-ed about an inadvertent harm that privacy laws can cause: while law enforcement can often access third-party data to aid in prosecution, the accused don’t have the same level of access to aid in their defense:

The proposed privacy laws would make this situation worse. Lawmakers may not have set out to make the criminal process even more unfair, but the unjust result is not surprising. When lawmakers propose privacy bills to protect sensitive information, law enforcement agencies lobby for exceptions so they can continue to access the information. Few lobby for the accused to have similar rights. Just as the privacy interests of poor, minority and heavily policed communities are often ignored in the lawmaking process, so too are the interests of criminal defendants, many from those same communities.

In criminal cases, both the prosecution and the accused have a right to subpoena evidence so that juries can hear both sides of the case. The new privacy bills need to ensure that law enforcement and defense investigators operate under the same rules when they subpoena digital data. If lawmakers believe otherwise, they should have to explain and justify that view.

For more detail, see her paper.

Nipe – Make Tor Default Gateway For Network

Post Syndicated from Darknet original https://www.darknet.org.uk/2019/07/nipe-make-tor-default-gateway-for-network/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=darknetfeed

Nipe – Make Tor Default Gateway For Network

Nipe is a Perl script to make Tor default gateway for network, this script enables you to directly route all your traffic from your computer to the Tor network through which you can surf the internet anonymously without having to worry about being tracked or traced back.

Tor enables users to surf the internet, chat and send instant messages anonymously, and is used by a wide variety of people for both licit and illicit purposes.

Read the rest of Nipe – Make Tor Default Gateway For Network now! Only available at Darknet.

Palantir’s Surveillance Service for Law Enforcement

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/07/palantirs_surve.html

Motherboard got its hands on Palantir’s Gotham user’s manual, which is used by the police to get information on people:

The Palantir user guide shows that police can start with almost no information about a person of interest and instantly know extremely intimate details about their lives. The capabilities are staggering, according to the guide:

  • If police have a name that’s associated with a license plate, they can use automatic license plate reader data to find out where they’ve been, and when they’ve been there. This can give a complete account of where someone has driven over any time period.
  • With a name, police can also find a person’s email address, phone numbers, current and previous addresses, bank accounts, social security number(s), business relationships, family relationships, and license information like height, weight, and eye color, as long as it’s in the agency’s database.

  • The software can map out a person’s family members and business associates of a suspect, and theoretically, find the above information about them, too.

All of this information is aggregated and synthesized in a way that gives law enforcement nearly omniscient knowledge over any suspect they decide to surveil.

Read the whole article — it has a lot of details. This seems like a commercial version of the NSA’s XKEYSCORE.

Boing Boing post.

Meanwhile:

The FBI wants to gather more information from social media. Today, it issued a call for contracts for a new social media monitoring tool. According to a request-for-proposals (RFP), it’s looking for an “early alerting tool” that would help it monitor terrorist groups, domestic threats, criminal activity and the like.

The tool would provide the FBI with access to the full social media profiles of persons-of-interest. That could include information like user IDs, emails, IP addresses and telephone numbers. The tool would also allow the FBI to track people based on location, enable persistent keyword monitoring and provide access to personal social media history. According to the RFP, “The mission-critical exploitation of social media will enable the Bureau to detect, disrupt, and investigate an ever growing diverse range of threats to U.S. National interests.”

US Journalist Detained When Returning to US

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/07/us_journalist_d.html

Pretty horrible story of a US journalist who had his computer and phone searched at the border when returning to the US from Mexico.

After I gave him the password to my iPhone, Moncivias spent three hours reviewing hundreds of photos and videos and emails and calls and texts, including encrypted messages on WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram. It was the digital equivalent of tossing someone’s house: opening cabinets, pulling out drawers, and overturning furniture in hopes of finding something — anything — illegal. He read my communications with friends, family, and loved ones. He went through my correspondence with colleagues, editors, and sources. He asked about the identities of people who have worked with me in war zones. He also went through my personal photos, which I resented. Consider everything on your phone right now. Nothing on mine was spared.

Pomeroy, meanwhile, searched my laptop. He browsed my emails and my internet history. He looked through financial spreadsheets and property records and business correspondence. He was able to see all the same photos and videos as Moncivias and then some, including photos I thought I had deleted.

The EFF has extensive information and advice about device searches at the US border, including a travel guide:

If you are a U.S. citizen, border agents cannot stop you from entering the country, even if you refuse to unlock your device, provide your device password, or disclose your social media information. However, agents may escalate the encounter if you refuse. For example, agents may seize your devices, ask you intrusive questions, search your bags more intensively, or increase by many hours the length of detention. If you are a lawful permanent resident, agents may raise complicated questions about your continued status as a resident. If you are a foreign visitor, agents may deny you entry.

The most important piece of advice is to think about this all beforehand, and plan accordingly.

Digital License Plates

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/07/digital_license.html

They’re a thing:

Developers say digital plates utilize “advanced telematics” — to collect tolls, pay for parking and send out Amber Alerts when a child is abducted. They also help recover stolen vehicles by changing the display to read “Stolen,” thereby alerting everyone within eyeshot.

This makes no sense to me. The numbers are static. License plates being low-tech are a feature, not a bug.